Forum - Space Odyssey MMORPG - a massive free online space game
March 29, 2024, 09:30:21 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: New game Astro Galaxy launched by ET Virtual Worlds, http://www.astro-galaxy.com
 
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1  General Talk / General Discussion / Re: lollosted on: March 25, 2010, 11:19:45 AM
yep, i was a noob too!

i think i actually remember that attack!
2  Space Odyssey Info Terminal / Updates / Re: SO Main - Covert Ops attack on: March 04, 2010, 08:57:30 AM
no, that does not appear to be so popular this round, but there was a lot of it last round

i think the reserved fleet counting toward total power has kept people form doing this, people just can't do extreme power downs anymore
3  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: Lower Cash Rewards, Reward top 50 on: March 04, 2010, 08:47:50 AM
one week is good, two weeks is better, any more than that and its overkill, i vote for 2 weeks
4  General Talk / SO WARS Discussion / Re: Everyone who plays wars regularly post something - New Toic on: March 03, 2010, 08:18:32 AM
i am on (but i think that is obvious)
5  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: Functional Alliances on: March 03, 2010, 08:06:58 AM
thats right!

i forgot about the joining fees suggested (and it was post just above mine!)

i do think that is also a good idea, i think that could work quite well

i think i can also agree with spayed on his support of the variety of suggestions here


thanks everyone for your comments, i think we are on the right path here
6  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: Lower Cash Rewards, Reward top 50 on: March 03, 2010, 08:03:20 AM
that is a viable option too
7  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: Functional Alliances on: March 03, 2010, 07:59:56 AM
as far as not being able to be kicked from or leave an alliance goes, this idea to to entice the alliance leader to be very selective in who is allowed to join the alliance, and for the alliance to be highly motivated to ensure that the new member is brought up to speed and given every needed to be successful.

However, because 'moles' will occur, I could support the idea that a player can only join 'one' alliance per round.  If that alliance chooses to 'kick' the player, then that player has lost the privilege of being a member of an alliance for the round. (in WARS I still say that movement between alliances can only occur yearly, there should be more of a risk of espionage is WARS, and more of an incentive to screen alliance members)
8  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Functional Alliances on: March 02, 2010, 10:25:23 AM
This suggestion supports the following three ideals:

1. Teamwork over individual achievements.
2. PvP over PvE
3. One account over many alternate accounts.

What I suggest:

a) At the beginning of each new round no one but the alliance leader belongs to an alliance.  Others may join an alliance once they have reached commander level 1 (except the official training alliance).  Once someone has joined an alliance for the round, they cannot leave or be kicked out. (Perhaps a 1 year rule in SOWARS)
b) Alliances gain bonuses as a group.  The alliance gains a bonus for each counter attack signature on its members, up to five count toward the bonus per commander.  I.E.  an alliance with 6 members, each with 3 counters ON THEM = 18 % bonus.  An alliance with 20 members, each with 1 counter on them = 20% bonus.
c) The alliance bonus is applied to ALL members.  The bonus is applied to all galaxy structure production and the SAB (where available)
d) Alliances are ranked based off the average member power of the top 80% in the alliance.  I.E. only the top 8 in an alliance of 10 would be counted.
e) Round rewards go to both individual commanders (like it is right now), and also to all members of the top ten alliances (I.E top alliance gets $100 split 20 ways by its 20 members, so $5 each)

What this changes:
I) Alliance members will have to learn to trust each other and work hard to help each member of their alliance to succeed.
II) One individual will struggle to keep up with alliances who get large bonuses.
III) Alliances will have to PvP to get a bonus, and they will have to use their counter attacks to keep other alliances from keeping their bonuses.
IV) I imagine that since no one can leave an alliance, there will be no entry until someone has proven themselves capable.  This will make it difficult for an inactive alt to gain acceptance into an alliance.
V) The commander ability to increase maximum alliance size becomes useful.

Okay, there is my idea.  I am sure there would be some tweaking to be done, but I thought i might put this out there.

Most of the ideas come from another free online browser based space MMORPG that has THOUSANDS of very ACTIVE members.
9  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: Lower Cash Rewards, Reward top 50 on: March 02, 2010, 09:32:00 AM
heh i have already proved myself lamma 13 and think back. even in those rounds before i started making top 10 i was always up there and i quit half way thru the game.. and it did take a while for me to learn.. the people that play the game with me now they know how i play.. hell i taught them a few things.. wes considering the strategy you are using this round is exactly what i told you to do. and i taught you plenty you are going to go here and say you dont respect me? guess the help stops there ay..

and wolfy does make a good point 13, ill go back to destroying everyone.. just like i have been doing the past many rounds... i wish you all luck 13 u will need it

LOL, i remember you quitting halfway though the rounds (I was in your alliance), you never wanted to marine.  I quit main for awhile and when I came back it had all changed.  I think you have done a great job in perfecting a strategy for main now, cheers for sticking it out finally.

Anyway, onto the topic.  I would be in favor of lowering the rewards.  Not because I don't think people deserve rewards for their excellence, but because it would help make everyone have to compete that much more from one round to another.

As has been suggested in other threads, I like the idea of some sort of in-game recognition for having placed TOP 10.  I think top ten should be more about bragging rights than money.
10  Feedback Terminal / "Bugs" and Problems / Re: Anyone Else Get This? on: February 22, 2010, 09:29:53 AM
it happens in IE but not in Firefox, that is what i have seen, i don't remember right now about Chrome, and I don't use Opera

my guess is that you are using different browsers on the different machines
11  General Talk / SO Help / Re: Station and Planet absorbing on: February 22, 2010, 09:21:08 AM
thanks for the math correction.  i did mean 16 not 18.

well that is good to know, next time i can save some CP and turns
12  General Talk / SO Help / Re: Station and Planet absorbing on: February 19, 2010, 04:33:01 PM
so there is no point to getting more that 18 planetary shields then?
13  General Talk / Design & Strategy Room / Re: Online Ship Designer on: February 19, 2010, 04:30:51 PM
i think the Goal FP figure will not be too difficult

as for different ship types, that would take some time, but i will look into it

i am glad you like it though
14  General Talk / SO Help / Station and Planet absorbing on: February 18, 2010, 09:11:42 AM
I am a little unclear about how my station is absorbing power.  The space station where my planet is claims to have 115% absorb power.  In attacking it myself, my 40 billion FP ship is able to do a small amount of damage, but all of the kami fleets attack is absorbed.

at the same time i have level 20 planetary shields (which should give me 100% absorb to my planet's ground forces).  I doubt that this means that my colonists are indestructible, but I am unclear on how to determine exactly how much damage they will take and if it makes any sense to ever invest in more shields than i currently have.

any insights would be greatly appreciated
15  Feedback Terminal / Suggestions / Re: not really a suggestion, more like a problem on: February 18, 2010, 09:01:30 AM
well, i did not really agree with my suggestion either, just thought i would put it out there

on, a more productive note then

i think it would make since for the galaxy to grow as stations and planets are placed.

I think the number of stars per quadrant is good, we just need less quadrants.  Then we add more quadrants as needed. 

For example:
We could have started out with just one quadrant (30 stars).  Once 10 stars were occupied, then another quadrant would have been added, and so on and so forth.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!